Our Local 353 Community Forums

General Discussion => IBEW Local 353 Union Meetings => Topic started by: PSperanza on June 16, 2015, 11:31:51 AM

Title: IBEW Representative Tom Reid, Can He Provide Proper Justice?
Post by: PSperanza on June 16, 2015, 11:31:51 AM
Sadly attending a local 353 union meeting does not seem to be about fairness, justice and respect for each member’s right to participate in a proper parliamentary style meeting. A proper assembly is conducted according to rules and the rules need to be applied properly and fairly to be able to claim respectability.

Parliamentary rules are meant to allow opposing views to exist while allowing important and necessary business to be conducted. When the fundamentals of proper procedure are undermined by incompetence or biased manipulative improper interpretations of Robert’s Rules of Order I believe it amounts to arrogant abuse of power that undermines the whole concept of fairness.


I regularly attend the meetings in my unit in Toronto and try to go to as many of the other unit meetings as I can when I am able. Recently I have attended each of the last 6 unit meetings that cover the months of May and June in local 353. We have 3 units (North Barrie, East Bowmanville, South Toronto) therefore 3 unit meetings per month all in the same week from Tuesday to Thursday.

In my experience of attending meetings I never witnessed such a high attendance at these meetings by the officers and business representatives as I did recently. It was like a call for all hands on deck had been made. Now with all of these experienced union officers and paid representatives on hand you would think that proper procedure according to the rules would exist. After all, they have sworn an oath to uphold the IBEW Constitution. The officers especially make a pledge in front of members with their right hands raised and state… “all this I solemnly pledge with the full knowledge that to violate this pledge is to stamp me devoid of principle and destitute of honour.”

Those are serious words with serious consequences that one would think an officer would remember. At the last south unit meeting one senior local 353 officer chose to mislead members by only reading what is listed in the IBEW Constitution, he avoided the actual oath that he repeated in front of members and that I witnessed him repeat in front of members.

The local 353 officers have retained a legal firm to send a member (myself) a Notice of Libel claiming defamation and threatening a lawsuit. Members were asked to vote on a bill of $5000.00 in May 2015. Questions for information by members on the union floor related to that bill were avoided by the business manager. Motions to table the bill until comprehensive factual information about the actions was provided were ruled out of order by the unit chairmen.

In June omissions to the minutes offered by members and corrections to errors were refused by two of the unit recorders.

A new bill for the sum of $27,165.20  was presented in the bills and members were advised by the chair at the north meeting that there were to be no questions regarding that bill. This caused objections and debate, but debate only happened after the vote was forced without proper information being provided. The chairman was challenged to provide a constitutional provision to the floor that supported his decision and he refused to do so.

At the east unit meeting the business manager would not answer questions regarding the bill and the chairman ruled a motion to table the bill out of order. When challenged to state what constitutional provision or parliamentary rule that he was basing his decision on, he would not provide an explanation. An officer on the dais stated that it was a standing bill and therefore had been already been paid and therefore could not be tabled.

At the local 353 south unit meeting after the business manager’s report we addressed the bills. Questions to the bills were invited and several members rose to address the chair. One member asked for clarification about the  plaintiffs listed on the legal papers. The floor was told that the officers were named but because they were the officers they represented the local just like the directors of corporation do for a corporation.

When I attempted to make a point regarding statements made by the business manager in his report and relate them to my questions on the bill related to the action by local 353 officers affecting myself I was interrupted and the microphone was turned off. I asked to be allowed to finish but again the microphone was ordered to be turned off by the chairman forcing me speak in a louder voice.  He refused my motion to lay the bill on the table until members were provided information about the actions being undertaken by the local 353 officers. He took exception to my lead in to my question that identified misinformation to the members by the business manager related to the bill in his report.

Business Manager Steven Martin stated that the action was being taken to address a case of slander by a member of the local who has put into the public slanderous things about the local union in itself.

I believe that if the business manager is going to make such statements and expect members to approve a legal bill regarding the action he should provide members with information about it. He did not.

Now the chairman Robert White refused a motion to lay the bill on the table and as I tried to make that motion he insisted on my answering a question regarding whether I “taping the meeting”. I responded that it was unfair for him to ask such a question and I tried to relate my position to the IBEW Constitution by quoting Article 1 Section. He interupted and loudly demanded that I must answer his question. When I pointed out that his action was discriminatory and that he in my opinion was violating the harassment policy read out at the beginning of the meeting he decided to poll the floor and ask members if they were in favour of being recorded. I protested his improper actions and he stated that I was causing a disturbance and he ordered me to leave the meeting.

I left the meeting and was in the dispatch area outside the meeting doors when I was confronted by Steven Martin who began pushing me and saying that I must leave the building. I asked him to keep his hands off me and he continued by pushing with his body and as I tried to move to where my bag was he blocked me and forcefully pushed me again. As this was happening several members were close by watching including business rep Les Carbonnaro and Greg Cullen, and two or three other members including at least two members that work at the hall.

So in my opinion unfairness and improper procedures are being allowed to go on in local 353 and not being expeditiously addressed by the IBEW international office despite charges being filed on numerous occasions. Intimidation is being allowed in union meetings and practiced by officers at the local 353 union hall, this is not the first incident regarding a member being pushed and abused by a local 353 Representative and is a disturbing trend that I hope will be addressed by someone in authority. It is hypocritical to read out a harassment policy at the beginning of union meetings and then allow political opponents or critics to be discriminated against by double standards and physical abuse.


Yesterday, I spoke with Tom Reid outside of the IBEW First District office and told him about what happened at the local 353 union hall on June 11, 2015. I asked him if he could call Steven Martin and ask him to preserve and not erase the video from the security cameras in the dispatch area where the incident took place so that we could view them.

I also requested a copy of any IBEW policy addressing the use electronic recording devices in union meetings. I informed him that I would be documenting my requests to him email to create a record. I sent the email at mid day but have not received a reply as yet,

[/quote]
Title: Re: IBEW Representative Tom Reid, Can He Provide Proper Justice?
Post by: PSperanza on June 19, 2015, 11:35:02 AM
FYI information IBEW Brothers and Sisters, below is an email reply from Executive Assistant to the International Vice President, Representative Thomas Reid to an email I sent him that is also copied below for your information.

FW: Re Request to Local 353 Privacy Officer?


FW: Re Request to Local 353 Privacy Officer
Reid, Thomas  Edit contact    18/06/2015   
To: Perry Speranza

                                                               
Perry: As the Privacy Officer of Local 353, Business Manager Martin has decided not to release the security video from the evening of June 11, 2015.  Additionally there is not a Constitutional Article, Local 353 bylaw, or policy or procedure of the IBEW that requires Brother Martin to allow you to view it.


In regard to a written policy on the members right to tape record meetings, as you know the IBEW Constitution is the supreme document that we all as IBEW members must adhere to. The IBEW Constitution, Article XVII, Section 3, under the main heading of Duties of Local Union Officers, and under the subheading of Recording Secretary states; The R.S. shall keep correct minutes of each meeting of the L.U., answer all correspondence in accordance with instructions given him by the L.U. or the President, make out all orders on the treasurer for the payment of authorized bills, notify the I.S.T. of all changes in officers giving names and addresses, and perform such other duties as are directed by the president or required by this Constitution and the bylaws of the L.U.  Additionally, as we discussed in the parking lot outside the First District office there are a number of practical, common sense,  reasons why the IBEW cannot allow members to tape record meetings, the most obvious being to protect the integrity of the meeting and the record there of.  The meeting as I am sure you aware is open only to members in “Good Standing” for the same obvious common sense reasons. We would have no practical means of ensuring that the members were not sharing the tape recordings with whomever they saw fit, which could include competitor unions, nonunion, or contractors. Additionally there is no means of ensuring that the member taping the meeting has not manipulated the recording to their own advantage resulting in an inaccurate record. Finally, it is not permissible because potentially there could be ulterior and malicious motives involved that are not in the best interest of the membership or the IBEW.

As we also discussed in the parking lot Monday, there is no way for the IBEW to prevent meetings being tape recorded covertly, you did as you have numerous times, pointed out the fact that Ontario law, in your opinion allows this. You then cite IBEW Constitution Article I, Section 2, which states;  “ This organization, in the merging together of all electrical workers in the United States and in Canada, fully recognizes the sovereignty of each of our great nations and the advancement of industry compatible with the laws of each country and the objects of this Constitution.” and you then make the connection or leap to the law as justification for your actions.  I am sure you are also aware that the laws of our great nation have for years( in excess of one hundred), recognized our Constitution, and when tested before courts, labour boards, and tribunals, have time and time again protected our rights to self-govern in accordance with the aforementioned Constitution.  This is not a leap, but documented fact, supported by copious amounts of jurisprudence, or case law if you prefer, which can be found online by anyone with the time and the desire to do so.

In closing, and in the interest of being perfectly clear, it is the policy of the IBEW First District office, that we cannot and will not knowingly allow members to tape record meetings of the L.U.

 
From: Perry Speranza [mailto:perryspe@sympatico.ca]
Sent: Monday, June 15, 2015 1:00 PM
To: Reid, Thomas
Subject: Re Request to Local 353 Privacy Officer

 
Dear Brother Reid,

 
As we discussed this morning I want to document by this email my request to you to ask Steven Martin (the local 353 privacy officer) to not allow the video from the security cameras in the dispatch area from Thursday June 11 to be erased. I would like to request that someone from the IBEW First District view it and allow me to be there.

This request is in relation to to an incident that happened between myself and BM/FS Steven Martin after I was asked to leave the union meeting by chairman Robert White. Steve Martin attempted to push me out of the dispatch area first by using his hands and then by pushing against me with his body.

I hope you will address this immediately as I was told by Steven Martin on Friday June 12, 2015 that the security tape will erase itself or tape over itself in 7 days.

Also, can you please provide me with a copy of an IBEW policy or rule that states that IBEW members are forbidden to use electronic recording devices in union meetings. As I told you this morning Robert White chose to ask me if I was recording the union meeting on Thursday June 11, 2015. I claimed that by doing so he was discriminating against me and harassing me contrary to the policy read out at the beginning of the meeting. He demanded that I answer his question and would not allow me to speak without interruption until I did. When I refused he accused me of disturbing the meeting because of my attempt to state my position and relate it to the IBEW Constitution Article 1. Section 2.

Thank you   
Title: Re: IBEW Representative Tom Reid, Can He Provide Proper Justice?
Post by: Conversationalist on June 20, 2015, 12:06:59 PM
Well what's the point of the security cameras if they are not used if an offense  is allegedly committed. Are they hiding what they did because if you have nothing to hide you will have no problem releasing the video tapes. I bet if a member shoved and pushed an officer or rep they would be in kangaroo court or worse. Hmm  didn't Bob gullins get in trouble over some incident like this with Joe Fashion?

What's going on here. If this offense is under the criminal code then its not protected under the ibew constitution.  Perry you need to use other means to get the tape. Were there witnesses to this as well who will come forward?

Considering you are the defendant in the libel suit and not the plaintiff they are certainly not making for a very good lawsuit. It only furthers your case of calling corruption of which not releasing the tapes is corruption.  Can't deny that analysis.

Title: Re: IBEW Representative Tom Reid, Can He Provide Proper Justice?
Post by: Conversationalist on June 20, 2015, 04:21:47 PM
 I have a real hard time seeing how the members at thr union meetings  unanimously approved the lawsuit when there were errors and ommissions in the minutes--one of the things perry classifies as corruption and is a correct way to view corruption--i guess it is like the members who voted a president back in as he was going to jail for corruption.  Doesn't make sense so do we have members blinded  by corruption or afraid for their jobs or promised stuff in return? Good questions to ask. 

Based on reading this forum I would love to see where slander against perry is justified as he only reports just like the newspapers  would do and he only presents the case with respect to the jobs they perform as officers or reps not personally and if you are paid by members hard working dollars of which perry does  contribute to their salaries then he has the right to question stuff, he can question it on behalf of members and he can expose'thr kangaroo courts of which he was subjected to and he can expose dragging of feet
Title: Re: IBEW Representative Tom Reid, Can He Provide Proper Justice?
Post by: Conversationalist on June 20, 2015, 04:59:57 PM
Its quite interesting that little time is spent on discussing the assault allegation. No where does the IO ask if you want help in getting the tape to view but rather trying to intimidate you with how the ibew constitution has been tested  and has won hundreds of time. 

However the viewing of a tape with a criminal charge allegation is very different .





Title: IBEW vs. Canadian Law
Post by: Eric Klyne on June 20, 2015, 11:11:59 PM
FYI information IBEW Brothers and Sisters, below is an email reply from Executive Assistant to the International Vice President, Representative Thomas Reid to an email I sent him that is also copied below for your information.

FW: Re Request to Local 353 Privacy Officer?


FW: Re Request to Local 353 Privacy Officer
Reid, Thomas  Edit contact    18/06/2015   
To: Perry Speranza

                                                               
Perry: As the Privacy Officer of Local 353, Business Manager Martin has decided not to release the security video from the evening of June 11, 2015.  Additionally there is not a Constitutional Article, Local 353 bylaw, or policy or procedure of the IBEW that requires Brother Martin to allow you to view it.


In regard to a written policy on the members right to tape record meetings, as you know the IBEW Constitution is the supreme document that we all as IBEW members must adhere to. The IBEW Constitution, Article XVII, Section 3, under the main heading of Duties of Local Union Officers, and under the subheading of Recording Secretary states; The R.S. shall keep correct minutes of each meeting of the L.U., answer all correspondence in accordance with instructions given him by the L.U. or the President, make out all orders on the treasurer for the payment of authorized bills, notify the I.S.T. of all changes in officers giving names and addresses, and perform such other duties as are directed by the president or required by this Constitution and the bylaws of the L.U.  Additionally, as we discussed in the parking lot outside the First District office there are a number of practical, common sense,  reasons why the IBEW cannot allow members to tape record meetings, the most obvious being to protect the integrity of the meeting and the record there of.  The meeting as I am sure you aware is open only to members in “Good Standing” for the same obvious common sense reasons. We would have no practical means of ensuring that the members were not sharing the tape recordings with whomever they saw fit, which could include competitor unions, nonunion, or contractors. Additionally there is no means of ensuring that the member taping the meeting has not manipulated the recording to their own advantage resulting in an inaccurate record. Finally, it is not permissible because potentially there could be ulterior and malicious motives involved that are not in the best interest of the membership or the IBEW.

As we also discussed in the parking lot Monday, there is no way for the IBEW to prevent meetings being tape recorded covertly, you did as you have numerous times, pointed out the fact that Ontario law, in your opinion allows this. You then cite IBEW Constitution Article I, Section 2, which states;  “ This organization, in the merging together of all electrical workers in the United States and in Canada, fully recognizes the sovereignty of each of our great nations and the advancement of industry compatible with the laws of each country and the objects of this Constitution.” and you then make the connection or leap to the law as justification for your actions.  I am sure you are also aware that the laws of our great nation have for years( in excess of one hundred), recognized our Constitution, and when tested before courts, labour boards, and tribunals, have time and time again protected our rights to self-govern in accordance with the aforementioned Constitution.  This is not a leap, but documented fact, supported by copious amounts of jurisprudence, or case law if you prefer, which can be found online by anyone with the time and the desire to do so.

In closing, and in the interest of being perfectly clear, it is the policy of the IBEW First District office, that we cannot and will not knowingly allow members to tape record meetings of the L.U.

 
From: Perry Speranza [mailto:perryspe@sympatico.ca]
Sent: Monday, June 15, 2015 1:00 PM
To: Reid, Thomas
Subject: Re Request to Local 353 Privacy Officer

 
Dear Brother Reid,

 
As we discussed this morning I want to document by this email my request to you to ask Steven Martin (the local 353 privacy officer) to not allow the video from the security cameras in the dispatch area from Thursday June 11 to be erased. I would like to request that someone from the IBEW First District view it and allow me to be there.

This request is in relation to to an incident that happened between myself and BM/FS Steven Martin after I was asked to leave the union meeting by chairman Robert White. Steve Martin attempted to push me out of the dispatch area first by using his hands and then by pushing against me with his body.

I hope you will address this immediately as I was told by Steven Martin on Friday June 12, 2015 that the security tape will erase itself or tape over itself in 7 days.

Also, can you please provide me with a copy of an IBEW policy or rule that states that IBEW members are forbidden to use electronic recording devices in union meetings. As I told you this morning Robert White chose to ask me if I was recording the union meeting on Thursday June 11, 2015. I claimed that by doing so he was discriminating against me and harassing me contrary to the policy read out at the beginning of the meeting. He demanded that I answer his question and would not allow me to speak without interruption until I did. When I refused he accused me of disturbing the meeting because of my attempt to state my position and relate it to the IBEW Constitution Article 1. Section 2.

Thank you
   


IBEW vs. Canadian Law

Dear Thomas Reid,

Excerpts from Legaltree.ca: http://www.legaltree.ca/node/908 (http://www.legaltree.ca/node/908)

The Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 [Criminal Code] imposes a general prohibition on interception (recording) of private communications, but then provides an exception where one of the parties to the private communication consents to the interception of that communication. Thus, broadly speaking, Canadians can legally record their own conversations with other people, but not other peoples' conversations that they are not involved in.
.
Consent to interception of a conversation involving many people
If many people are involved in a single conversation, it can lawfully be recorded so long as any one of the parties to the conversation consents to it being recorded. That rule is set out in s. 183.1 of the Criminal Code:
 
Where a private communication is originated by more than one person or is intended by the originator thereof to be received by more than one person, a consent to the interception thereof by any one of those persons is sufficient consent for the purposes of any provision of this Part.
.
Rights to privacy under other Canadian legislation
Apart from the Criminal Code, various statutes in Canada provide privacy protection. For example, the British Columbia Privacy Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 373 [Privacy Act] codifies the tort of violation of privacy. However, there is nothing in that statute which indicates that it is a violation of another person’s privacy to record a conversation with them. Further, s. 1(2) of the Privacy Act states that:
 
The nature and degree of privacy to which a person is entitled … is that which is reasonable in the circumstances, giving due regard to the lawful interests of others.
(Emphasis added).
 
Thus, the Privacy Act would not likely prevent a party to a private communication from recording it as permitted by s. 184(2)(a) of the Criminal Code.
................................................................................      
Ignorance of the Law is no excuse.
You are no longer ignorant of Canadian Law Mr. Thomas Reid.
Please inform the rest of the IBEW International and Local officers, AND also inform the members
that they have no right to expect that their conversations won't be recorded at union meetings.
IBEW 353 officers especially need to be aware that their actions/inaction at union meetings might be recorded,
so they should stop damaging the integrity of the IBEW by violating the Parliamentary Procedure of union meetings.
The IBEW Constitution does not state that members can or cannot audio record meetings. No IBEW policies or votes by IBEW members at meetings can violate Canadian Law.

Please refer to Canadian Law before jumping to conclusions and possibly embarrassing the IBEW.
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/FullText.html (http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/FullText.html)

Specifically:
Consent to interception
183.1
 Where a private communication is originated by more than one person or is intended by the originator thereof to be received by more than one person, a consent to the interception thereof by any one of those persons is sufficient consent for the purposes of any provision of this Part.
      1993, c. 40, s. 2.

Title: IBEW vs. Canadian Law
Post by: Eric Klyne on June 21, 2015, 03:20:05 AM
Also Mr. Tom Reid, you said the following:


"In regard to a written policy on the members right to tape record meetings, as you know the IBEW Constitution is the supreme document that we all as IBEW members must adhere to." …

… "I am sure you are also aware that the laws of our great nation have for years( in excess of one hundred), recognized our Constitution, and when tested before courts, labour boards, and tribunals, have time and time again protected our rights to self-govern in accordance with the aforementioned Constitution.  This is not a leap, but documented fact, supported by copious amounts of jurisprudence, or case law if you prefer, which can be found online by anyone with the time and the desire to do so."



I challenge Mr. Tom Reid to forward any amount of Canadian jurisprudence, or Canadian case law if he prefers, that can be found online that would support the IBEW harassing any member for exercising their right to record union meetings.
Maybe he can get Gary Majesky to post it as his ourlocal353 alias Good TradeUnionist.


In closing, and in the interest of being perfectly clear, it is the policy of the IBEW First District office, that we cannot and will not knowingly allow members to tape record meetings of the L.U.


IBEW vs. Canadian Law

So, in the interest of being perfectly clear, you, Mr. Tom Reid, are stating that the IBEW will violate Canadian Law?

IBEW Constitution, Article XVII, Section 3
http://www.ibew769.com/library/constitution/article17.htm (http://www.ibew769.com/library/constitution/article17.htm)
vs.
Canadian Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 Consent to interception 183.1
http://yourlaws.ca/criminal-code-canada/1831-consent-interception (http://yourlaws.ca/criminal-code-canada/1831-consent-interception)

Additionally there is not a Constitutional Article, Local 353 bylaw, or policy or procedure of the IBEW that allows, condones or gives permission to any IBEW officer or member to harass and/or stop any IBEW member from tape recording meetings of the L.U.

Does the IBEW 353 Harassment Policy not protect members
from being "singled out" with unwelcome requests of whether they are recording the meeting or not?

If the IBEW officers want to state that members should not record the meetings at the beginning of every meeting, they have a right to say that.
If they want to know whether anyone is recording the meeting, then they must ask the members as a whole.
Otherwise, it's harassment.

No one has any right to "order" someone to answer a question.
No IBEW officer has the right to "order" someone to answer a question, falsely accuse them of "causing a disturbance" for refusing to answer and then kick them out of a meeting.
Title: IBEW Representative Tom Reid, Can He Provide Proper Justice?
Post by: GoodTradeUnionist on June 21, 2015, 06:18:58 AM
Erik,

Bros. Reid was very clear and succinct in his words, which were carefully chosen.

The parking lot ambush, a favourite of the hurry-up justice crowd was tawdry.

When members were polled whether they wanted Speranza secretly tape recording them and the 353 meeting, they voted overwhelming No.

You couldn't get a more resounding reply, even if you posed the question "who wants get get  f u c k up the ass by the boss?"

Glad Perry's crazy position has infected our labour relations, because he opens the door for further intrusive actions by employers who want to spy on members.

Bright Nutz Speranza would screw everything up, just like his suicide grievance re Over-Age 50 clause, which the contractors won.  Why?  Because protecting older workers is reverse discrimination against younger members.

Ypu're incessant piddly constitutional itches always have a way of blowing up spectacularly.
don't you think?
Title: Re: IBEW Representative Tom Reid, Can He Provide Proper Justice?
Post by: Eric Klyne on June 21, 2015, 06:55:01 AM
Gary Majesky, if you are a member of the "Law Society of Upper Canada",
why do you avoid discussing the LAW?



Erik,

Bros. Reid was very clear and succinct in his words, which were carefully chosen.

The parking lot ambush, a favourite of the hurry-up justice crowd was tawdry.

When members were polled whether they wanted Speranza secretly tape recording them and the 353 meeting, they voted overwhelming No.

You couldn't get a more resounding reply, even if you posed the question "who wants get get  f u c k up the ass by the boss?"

Glad Perry's crazy position has infected our labour relations, because he opens the door for further intrusive actions by employers who want to spy on members.

Bright Nutz Speranza would screw everything up, just like his suicide grievance re Over-Age 50 clause, which the contractors won.  Why?  Because protecting older workers is reverse discrimination against younger members.

Ypu're incessant piddly constitutional itches always have a way of blowing up spectacularly.
don't you think?

Quote
Bros. Reid was very clear and succinct in his words, which were carefully chosen.

Yes Gary Majesky,
and I see you failed to post any links that would support Mr. Reid's words that would support the IBEW harassing any member for exercising their right to record union meetings..

Quote
When members were polled whether they wanted Speranza secretly tape recording them and the 353 meeting, they voted overwhelming No.

So what.
Gary, are you stating that the members can overrule Canadian Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 Consent to interception 183.1?

Quote
Glad Perry's crazy position has infected our labour relations, because he opens the door for further intrusive actions by employers who want to spy on members.

Employer friendly members that would want to spy on members at meetings always had the open door to record meetings.
Rather silly to suggest that Perry would be the spark to encourage employers to do that.

Quote
Bright Nutz Speranza would screw everything up, just like his suicide grievance re Over-Age 50 clause, which the contractors won.  Why?  Because protecting older workers is reverse discrimination against younger members.

If the Over-Age 50 clause protecting older workers is reverse discrimination against younger members, why did the contractors agree to it?
AND why did the IBEW 353 officers screw up and FAIL to win the grievance Gary?
.
.
.
But let's get back to the LAW
the LAW that clearly states that the members have no right to privacy, in regards to whether their conversations will or won't be recorded at union meetings.
Title: There is no IBEW policy about tape recording meetings
Post by: Eric Klyne on June 21, 2015, 08:23:00 AM
Gary Majesky aka GoodTradeUnionist,

The IBEW International office is wrong to interpret the IBEW Constitution, Article XVII, Section 3
as being a policy that allows them to harass, bully and interrogate individual members as to whether they are recording the meeting.

The IBEW International office is also wrong to interpret the IBEW Constitution, Article XVII, Section 3
as being a policy that allows them to harass, bully and prevent members from tape recording meetings of the L.U.

To be clear and succinct
(when referring to IBEW Constitution, Article XVII, Section 3),

"The R.S. shall keep correct minutes of each meeting of the L.U."
does not translate to
"we cannot and will not knowingly allow members to tape record meetings of the L.U."
Title: Re: IBEW Representative Tom Reid, Can He Provide Proper Justice?
Post by: kojack on June 21, 2015, 10:49:12 AM
It is reverse discrimination to protect older workers.
Why then is on the agreement ?
And what is it when older workers collect fat pay check and take job from young workers ?
Title: Re: IBEW Representative Tom Reid, Can He Provide Proper Justice?
Post by: kojack on June 21, 2015, 10:55:21 AM
Glad Perry's crazy position has infected our labour relations, because he opens the door for further intrusive actions by employers who want to spy on members
I don't believe what I read !!!
The contractors have any information they want from the reps for the members,
BETTER STOP THIS JOKE !
Title: Re: IBEW Representative Tom Reid, Can He Provide Proper Justice?
Post by: Conversationalist on June 21, 2015, 12:24:34 PM
With respect to the  failed over 50 grievance since when does a member get blamed for the failure--is 353 so low that they blame members for their failed grievances and wsib claims.

The over 50 clause in construction is morally right  and the human rights board errred and even a child could figure out the right way to do things.

So was the failed grievance  because of lack of proper representation so it could be rubbed in an political adversaries face over and over again? Good question.

If it was that's corruption and the rubbing of the failed grievance against perry is corruption to be used by perry in court in the libel case.
Title: Re: IBEW Representative Tom Reid, Can He Provide Proper Justice?
Post by: Conversationalist on June 21, 2015, 02:54:06 PM
Since were talking about grievances here is an example of not wanting to step on the toes of contractors by the former bm--- I heard that a member years ago had a great grievance case but at the olrb the member was asked to drop the grievance as it would be a long process and they would reward them by putting them in a different classification which was more money. The member gave in because this pathetic display of lack of backbone  by this union was so disheartening to them.

So would you like to comment on that GTU? Or is this embarrassing. Are we embarrassing the court action?


Title: Re: IBEW Representative Tom Reid, Can He Provide Proper Justice?
Post by: Conversationalist on June 21, 2015, 04:31:22 PM
According to your post perry they served you a notice for threatening  a lawsuit--really well I guess  you can subpoena a former rep for threatening a lawsuit against a contractor trying to get the money he was owed under the stab/market recovery fund . That should be quite interesting.

Its ok for  them to threaten a lawsuit but you can't?  Thats a good one . I hope the judge finds it rather comical.

Title: Re: IBEW Representative Tom Reid, Can He Provide Proper Justice?
Post by: Conversationalist on June 21, 2015, 05:37:18 PM
Erik,

Bros. Reid was very clear and succinct in his words, which were carefully chosen.

The parking lot ambush, a favourite of the hurry-up justice crowd was tawdry.

When members were polled whether they wanted Speranza secretly tape recording them and the 353 meeting, they voted overwhelming No.

You couldn't get a more resounding reply, even if you posed the question "who wants get get  f u c k up the ass by the boss?"

Glad Perry's crazy position has infected our labour relations, because he opens the door for further intrusive actions by employers who want to spy on members.

Bright Nutz Speranza would screw everything up, just like his suicide grievance re Over-Age 50 clause, which the contractors won.  Why?  Because protecting older workers is reverse discrimination against younger members.

Ypu're incessant piddly constitutional itches always have a way of blowing up spectacularly.
don't you think?

So what do u mean further intrusive actions by companies to spy on members. Like to tell us about any intrusive spying measures already undertaken. I hear through the grapevine a specific contractor was spying. Can you confirm or deny that rumour. And the reasons for spying because in my view its because they want to hide stuff.  If there is mutual respect between a company and employee. Give and take so to speak. Employees putting in a full days work and the company paying what they are supposed to then no reason to worry about the employee or vice versa. 

So why would a company worry about what an employee stated at a union meeting. By the way the excuse made was that an employee on disability might be worried. Why should an employee legitimately hurt worry because he went to a unioin meeting. Its not work now is it? So what he does on his personal time is not paid and no ones business under the charter of rights.
Title: Re: IBEW Representative Tom Reid, Can He Provide Proper Justice?
Post by: kojack on June 21, 2015, 06:36:52 PM
I don't think the contractors need to spy.. the spies work for contractors..
But bottom line is,, the contractors they are ok if you work strait time, don't know the agreement, don't speak to other members for rights, be available when they need you with no question ask,
When I see member bring 8 bottles of water everyday on the job with 78 floors, and I ask for water the first day, and I get the ROE,THE CONTRACTORS DONT SPY !! THE RAT IS THERE !!!
Title: Re: IBEW Representative Tom Reid, Can He Provide Proper Justice?
Post by: PSperanza on June 23, 2015, 11:28:39 AM
This is an interesting analysis written by Eric Klyne in another topic, I will quote part of it here to make a few points but the active link will take you to the other topic for the full post.

In my opinion it seems that IBEW officers are willing to ignore that the law of the land allows for a citizen to carry a recorder to protect themselves. It's important to understand that the law does not allow a person to use recordings to harm others or to defame others publicly. If a person used a one party consent recording to embarrass or defame another person publicly they could be libel under the law. So the law covers what some officers seem to be worried about. Similarly an IBEW member using information recorded to harm the IBEW by sharing it with other unions or "employers" or "employer supported organizations" could be disciplined under the IBEW Constitution.

I mentioned to Tom Reid in our conversation that if a member truly wanting be a spy at a union meeting with malicious intentions it would be impossible to detect at a meeting or to identify if they passed sensitive information to competitors or employers. I stated that the IBEW should electronically record all union meetings and use those recordings as a reference in the event that there were disagreements about what should be included in the minutes.

Simply stating that the IBEW Constitution provides for recording of what is said and done by defining the duties of the recording secretary does not preclude any member from keeping their own minutes. It is the official minutes that count and that is why it is so important for the union body to accept them and to be properly recognized when identifying omissions.

Officers making statements like "My minutes will stand as written" without an explanation or proof to justify such a statement in response to an identified omission is arrogant and in the case of excluding the recording of actions taken taken at a meeting is simply a violation of the IBEW Constitution and a chargeable offence.

IVP Daniel writes in his appeal decision to me related to being told I could not attend a low rise sector meeting by local 353 officers that I should have "obeyed now and grieved later", but that makes no sense in the context of the rules, the parliamentary rules are in place to allow for proper procedure within the meeting. If the same officers violate the rules repeatedly it makes no sense to simply accept it and be denied your right to attend a meeting.

I have taken the time to appeal directly to Brother Reid about current issues by speaking to him, I challenged the statement made in Brother Daniels decision by stating that I have filed charges related to improper procedure in union meetings with the international office and yet have not been contacted by the international representative that was assigned to investigate. One week after that conversation I was contacted by international representative Bruce McNamara to schedule a meeting to discuss two sets of charges filed by myself against local 353 officer about a year ago. I asked Bruce for an explanation and he simply said I'm sorry about that.

Is it any wonder that IBEW members are apathetic about going to meetings and exercising their rights as members according to the IBEW Constitution when those that try are subjected to being charged and quickly found guilty by unfair tribunals and then made to wait as long 17 months for an appeal decision as I was in my most recent experience. Conversely complaints and charges according to the IBEW Constitution made related to improper officer actions are treated poorly and sometimes just ignored.

Is it unfair for any IBEW member to look at this and state that the system is biased and favours improper officers by allowing them to punish members whenever they decide to. In my experience it seems to happen around election time. I was banned from speaking at meetings in a year leading up to local union elections. There is nothing the IBEW can do to rectify the damage done by allowing that to happen and it appears there is nothing they wish to do to rectify it. That type of abuse to members by officers will in my opinion damage the IBEW more than any competitor organization could hope to do with whatever information they could get from some rat member spy that may exist but that I severely doubt exists at our meetings.

This "Notice of Libel" action by local 353 officers is happening right before and during an important IBEW Convention Delegates election in local 353 and falls in line with that type of strategy.

Just a coincidence?  :-\

The IBEW has no written policy or law that prohibits members from using electronic recording devices at meetings and in fact the IBEW Convention proceedings have a large gallery of guests and members other than all of the elected delegates observing the proceedings. They use electronic recording devices freely and there was no mention from any IBEW officers about about any policy or restrictions to their use. The IBEW Convention is a media fest that gives one the impression that the IBEW embraces communication with other members via electronic means by social media and Youtube.

Am I mistaken about that?


           

Back to the IBEW "PreCrime" Department. "Bullshit!" you say. "What evidence is there?" "Where are the footprints?" OK, I am glad you asked. Let's start with something that is currently happening within the IBEW Local Union 353. How about the recent email from the IBEW Executive Assistant to the International Vice President, Representative Thomas Reid?


Tom Reid stated:
"Additionally, as we discussed in the parking lot outside the First District office there are a number of practical, common sense,
reasons why the IBEW cannot allow members to tape record meetings, the most obvious being to protect the integrity of the meeting and the record there of. 

We would have no practical means of ensuring that the members were not sharing the tape recordings with whomever they saw fit,
which could include competitor unions, nonunion, or contractors.

Additionally there is no means of ensuring that the member taping the meeting has not manipulated the recording to their own advantage resulting in an inaccurate record.

Finally, it is not permissible because potentially there could be ulterior and malicious motives involved that are not in the best interest of the membership or the IBEW."



     You ask, "How does Tom Reid's email relate to the IBEW "PreCrime" Department "precogs" and what they are doing?"
Well, it's not just what Tom Reid said, it's also that they kicked Speranza out of a meeting for not answering whether he was recording it and believing that he had malicious motives.
 
They are accusing Brother Speranza of potentially violating the IBEW Constitution in the future and punished him without a trial.
These IBEW "precogs" already found Speranza guilty of violating Article 25, Section 1 (j) of the IBEW Constitution,
"Making known the business of a L.U., directly or indirectly, to any employer, employer-supported organization, or other union, or to the representatives of any of the foregoing."

And yet Brother Perry Speranza has never done that. He was punished for a crime that has never occurred.



Title: Re: IBEW Representative Tom Reid, Can He Provide Proper Justice?
Post by: Conversationalist on June 23, 2015, 07:08:19 PM
Both you and Eric write such easy to understand posts. You are blowing the refusal to tape union meetings out the window for those who condemn it.

They make no sense at all. You guys do and anyone reading sees the same thing I'm sure.  Refusal to tape union meetings is to hide and cover up ommissions and errors and embarrassing stuff. Plain and simple .

Anyone could tape Union meetings without anyone's knowledge and the only malicious actions I see in my opinion are the kangaroo courts against you and continual harassment.

By the way the low rise sector guys at that ratification meeting you were escorted out by police (JOKE) were sold down the river. 

Title: IBEW Representative Tom Reid, Can He Provide Proper Justice?
Post by: GoodTradeUnionist on June 23, 2015, 11:59:47 PM
Here’s the bottom line.  Klyne got tossed from the IBEW, an almost impossible task, but those who observed and dealt with him realized it’s sometimes better to kill the bastard spawn, not because they are personally threatened, but for the simple reason he is a perpetual noise machine. 

The union would grind to a halt and cease performing its primary mission, which is to negotiate  agreement(s), represent members, and advance a progressive political agenda.
 
Is someone distracts or detracts from these political imperatives, then you fight them at the ballot box and send them down the road kicking stones. 

It seems Klyne couldn’t run with the big dogs.  A lot of yapping, barking, but zero bite. 

He’s great in the art department, but he wasn’t able to measure up when he came to Toronto.  He tried, but hey, the list is long and some illustrious fella’s were served their head on a silver platter.  In fact, Perry Speranza was one of those guys. 

This tape recording thing is so egocentric, and exposes your political vanity and insolence.

If that’s all you got as political fodder, do the union some good and volunteer at a food bank, but whatever you do, don’t prance that dead horse around as some political cause celeb. 

And this COP thing is pure Perry Speranza.  In 2002, he and the last Bob Gill were asked to leave the Proto Electric employee BBQ, whilst Perry stood on the hood of a car and bellowed “men”, just like a scene from On The Waterfront.  It was classic Johnny Friendly.  He lost that election, which the first in a string of electoral defeats.  Each one more resounding that the last. 

However, the Peel Regional coppers gave Speranza an escort and was told to leave the premises.

Then in 2013 after causing a ruckus at the low-rise ratification meeting, in which Perry Speranza came equipped with hand bills and tape recorder, he crashed the meeting.

Sparks flew, there were loud voices, and in the end, another police escort for Speranza.  No criminal charges were filed, even though Speranza alleged he was assaulted by Tony Chiappetta.  However, the ever litigious former IBEW organizer charged 13 officers, reps and organizers with condoning breaches of the IBEW Constitution, however, these frivolous charges were dismissed. 

Always quick to remind 353 members of the long list of false charges and wrongful convictions he had to suffer, Speranza says he was exonerated of all charges.  But is that really true?

In my opinion, the Libel notice appears to relate to Speranza’s uncontrollable urge to publicly defame the LU 353 Officers as a bunch of criminal louts that dream of ways to thwart justice, and frustrate civil liberty minded members, such as Speranza. 

I really don’t see a connection between the libel action, and the IBEW Convention.  However, when dealing with paranoid and delusional people, I can understand how they may believe there is an ulterior motive, no matter how unlikely.

But his last bit of mischief making was at the June 2015 353 South Unit meeting.  This time Speranza got the jump on the officers, and called the cop’s to investigate a purported assault upon his person.

I’m sure we’ll soon learn that outcome of that saga, and whether Speranza was able to torque this into tit-for-tat grandstanding exercise against the very officers who filed the libel or defamation suit. 

In my opinion, people who shit on their union, looking to destroy the peace and harmony of union meetings, and besmirch the good name of union officers and our great union the IB of EW, deserve to spend time in the political wilderness.

No doubt, Speranza has become irrelevant, and members who attend union meetings mumble WHY do the union officers let this guy spew incessant incivility in the chamber of union democracy?

The reason WHY, because the officers are good trade unionists, and no matter how repugnant, foul and uncivil Speranza behaves, he gets his 7 minutes, then cut-off.

That's the mark of good leaders.  However, Speranza does not know when to stop, and let others use the union bully pulpit to advance their ideas and concerns.

All in all, Local 353 is a wonderful organization, not perfect, but darn good, and even members like Speranza are part of our union fabric, mind you, a stained part of our union tapestry. 

And grasshopper when you can snatch the pebble from my hand, you can enter the Temple of IBEW Democracy and bask in the warm glow of brotherly love and friendship. 

God bless.
Title: Re: IBEW Representative Tom Reid, Can He Provide Proper Justice?
Post by: Eric Klyne on June 24, 2015, 02:03:20 AM
This tape recording thing is so egocentric, and exposes your political vanity and insolence.

Gary Majesky aka GoodTradeUnionist,
Leave it to you to just sling insults, like a child having a temper tantrum, when unable to logically debate.
In Tom Reid's confusingly written email, he states that there is Canadian jurisprudence, or Canadian case law, that can be found online that would support the IBEW harassing any member for exercising their right to record union meetings.
Why haven't you pasted these links Gary Majesky?
Because they don't exist.

The IBEW Constitution, Article XVII, Section 3
is not a policy to harass, bully and interrogate individual members, as to whether they are recording the meeting.

The IBEW Constitution, Article XVII, Section 3
is not a policy to harass, bully and prevent members from tape recording meetings of the L.U.

To be clear and succinct[/size] (when referring to IBEW Constitution, Article XVII, Section 3),

"The R.S. shall keep correct minutes of each meeting of the L.U."
does not translate to
"we cannot and will not knowingly allow members to tape record meetings of the L.U."


AND why did Tom Reid put himself in such an embarrassing position with such a ridiculous interpretation?
Why didn't the IBEW officers rely on the IBEW LU 353 Bylaws?
Weren't the Bylaws allegedly amended to have a rule that prohibits audio recording meetings?
I recall that the IBEW 353 officers violated Parliamentary Procedure in their attempts to pass that rule too.
AND where are the 353 Bylaws? They are public information like the IBEW Constitution.

Always quick to remind 353 members of the long list of false charges and wrongful convictions he had to suffer, Speranza says he was exonerated of all charges.  But is that really true?

Gary Majesky,
We know you like to LIE and misinform IBEW members but why try to misinform members about that?
Most of those decisions that found Speranza innocent are on this forum.

In my opinion, the Libel notice appears to relate to Speranza’s uncontrollable urge to publicly defame the LU 353 Officers as a bunch of criminal louts that dream of ways to thwart justice, and frustrate civil liberty minded members, such as Speranza. 

Gary Majesky,
you and most of the LU 353 Officers are disgracefully corrupt louts that thwart justice, and frustrate civil liberty minded members, such as Speranza.
The Libel notice is just an abuse of the Canadian Courts. You jerks wouldn't be so quick to do that if Canada had SLAPP laws like the USA. But no worries.
If the LU 353 Officers are silly enough to pursue it, the Judge will hear the evidence that supports the label of being disgracefully corrupt. Audio recordings are admissible in Court.
Title: Re: IBEW Representative Tom Reid, Can He Provide Proper Justice?
Post by: Conversationalist on June 24, 2015, 08:36:45 AM
Here’s the bottom line.  Klyne got tossed from the IBEW, an almost impossible task, but those who observed and dealt with him realized it’s sometimes better to kill the bastard spawn, not because they are personally threatened, but for the simple reason he is a perpetual noise machine. 

The union would grind to a halt and cease performing its primary mission, which is to negotiate  agreement(s), represent members, and advance a progressive political agenda.
 
Is someone distracts or detracts from these political imperatives, then you fight them at the ballot box and send them down the road kicking stones. 

It seems Klyne couldn’t run with the big dogs.  A lot of yapping, barking, but zero bite. 

He’s great in the art department, but he wasn’t able to measure up when he came to Toronto.  He tried, but hey, the list is long and some illustrious fella’s were served their head on a silver platter.  In fact, Perry Speranza was one of those guys. 

This tape recording thing is so egocentric, and exposes your political vanity and insolence.

If that’s all you got as political fodder, do the union some good and volunteer at a food bank, but whatever you do, don’t prance that dead horse around as some political cause celeb. 

And this COP thing is pure Perry Speranza.  In 2002, he and the last Bob Gill were asked to leave the Proto Electric employee BBQ, whilst Perry stood on the hood of a car and bellowed “men”, just like a scene from On The Waterfront.  It was classic Johnny Friendly.  He lost that election, which the first in a string of electoral defeats.  Each one more resounding that the last. 

However, the Peel Regional coppers gave Speranza an escort and was told to leave the premises.

Then in 2013 after causing a ruckus at the low-rise ratification meeting, in which Perry Speranza came equipped with hand bills and tape recorder, he crashed the meeting.

Sparks flew, there were loud voices, and in the end, another police escort for Speranza.  No criminal charges were filed, even though Speranza alleged he was assaulted by Tony Chiappetta.  However, the ever litigious former IBEW organizer charged 13 officers, reps and organizers with condoning breaches of the IBEW Constitution, however, these frivolous charges were dismissed. 

Always quick to remind 353 members of the long list of false charges and wrongful convictions he had to suffer, Speranza says he was exonerated of all charges.  But is that really true?

In my opinion, the Libel notice appears to relate to Speranza’s uncontrollable urge to publicly defame the LU 353 Officers as a bunch of criminal louts that dream of ways to thwart justice, and frustrate civil liberty minded members, such as Speranza. 

I really don’t see a connection between the libel action, and the IBEW Convention.  However, when dealing with paranoid and delusional people, I can understand how they may believe there is an ulterior motive, no matter how unlikely.

But his last bit of mischief making was at the June 2015 353 South Unit meeting.  This time Speranza got the jump on the officers, and called the cop’s to investigate a purported assault upon his person.

I’m sure we’ll soon learn that outcome of that saga, and whether Speranza was able to torque this into tit-for-tat grandstanding exercise against the very officers who filed the libel or defamation suit. 

In my opinion, people who shit on their union, looking to destroy the peace and harmony of union meetings, and besmirch the good name of union officers and our great union the IB of EW, deserve to spend time in the political wilderness.

No doubt, Speranza has become irrelevant, and members who attend union meetings mumble WHY do the union officers let this guy spew incessant incivility in the chamber of union democracy?

The reason WHY, because the officers are good trade unionists, and no matter how repugnant, foul and uncivil Speranza behaves, he gets his 7 minutes, then cut-off.

That's the mark of good leaders.  However, Speranza does not know when to stop, and let others use the union bully pulpit to advance their ideas and concerns.

All in all, Local 353 is a wonderful organization, not perfect, but darn good, and even members like Speranza are part of our union fabric, mind you, a stained part of our union tapestry. 

And grasshopper when you can snatch the pebble from my hand, you can enter the Temple of IBEW Democracy and bask in the warm glow of brotherly love and friendship. 

God bless.

Good Trade Unionist or should I say substandard trade unionist-remember how unions were built-on people willing to push the buttons and do stuff in order to help the working class. Do you forget that or did you think good trade unionist was a good name-a catchy name. Once again a way to attack Perry.

And Eric Klyne being kicked out. Now that was a union doing whatever they want with no repercussions. I believe that Eric walked away from a rep job because he saw inconsistencies. Now thats a bigger man compared to those who run away from issues. Wow isnt it amazing how after all this stuff is exposed on this net that finally after a year the international rep calls Perry. Quite interesting if the stuff isnt true. But it is and that is why Eric was kicked out. Because he knows how to throw the punches that hurt. But you see they dont hurt because someone is protecting this union and letting them get away with no accountability.  But you had to get rid of him nonetheless. Still a threat.

You know what I think-I think if you put the one with the bar credentials after his name and Eric Klyne I think we would know who would win as long as you didnt have a dirty judge.

So instead of trying to bring up all the stuff that Perry did in the past which is what good trade unionists have done in the past to further their cause-which is show balls--perhaps you can strap on some balls so that you can be in the same class of being a good trade unionist.

Yes you still havent logically debated with Eric once again. Thats what we want to see. A good debate.

When are you going to talk about Jaimie B-thats a good case--no comment from you. Why not? Dont have any insults to hurl at that apprentice?  An apprentice denied work with ADD. Lets see if that was happening in ibew 353 and an apprentice with ADD got hurt on the job and the wsib rep had to defend him. Would not the wsib perhaps try to use his ADD to perhaps get out of paying the claim but the wsib rep would fight tooth and nails to defend him. Isnt that true.

I would love to see any of the paid reps have any balls to stand up for Jaimie. Any of them out there who realizes its wrong but wont give their opinion because it might mean they lose their jobs? Now that is not a true unionist.

So when you can come on here and debate and answer the questions posed without hurling your insults then perhaps you will be taken more serious and I hate to tell you but every time you come on here you just make yourself look worse. But thats my opinion.
which I hope is shared by lots of people reading and lots of people do read this forum.

And did you know that good trade unionists will use every avenue peossible to make their case known. So have fun with your libel case because Im sure Perry is not backing down. Good trade unionists would never back down.





Title: Re: IBEW Representative Tom Reid, Can He Provide Proper Justice?
Post by: Conversationalist on June 24, 2015, 08:54:41 AM
Perry has not become irrelevant now has he good trade unionist--thats why there is the libel suit--he is more of a threat now because he is now going beyond this forum to speak his mind.

By the way are you taunting that no one can take the pebble from your hand. Are you gloating about being untouchable? Well maybe the libel case will help take the pebble from your hand!!!!
Title: Re: IBEW Representative Tom Reid, Can He Provide Proper Justice?
Post by: Conversationalist on June 24, 2015, 09:42:05 AM
   


                PRODUCE AN UNEDITED VERSION OF THE TAPE OF THE LOW LEVEL ASSAULT ALLEGATION

                               REFUSAL IS CORRUPTON----DRAGGING OF THE FEET TO PRODUCE IT IS CORRUPTION
Title: Re: IBEW Representative Tom Reid, Can He Provide Proper Justice?
Post by: Conversationalist on June 24, 2015, 11:19:26 AM
GTU is the rumour correct that the goons of the union are helping you keep the pebble. And goons are not exactly good trade unionists but rather the ones that lurk in the shadows--the ones that attend members homes with guns in their pockets--to threaten someone to bow out of an election??? in front of children.

Is that rumour correct--is that the tool Joe gave Garry to protect his  political career? the gift of goons and other techniques? Remember good trade unionists push the buttons. 

Whose on the windows of members right now including Perry? Whose on Perrys phone lines? Who is spying from the air? Whose on his electronic devices-is the device in his walls? at or near the plugs   ah so many questions   i got a headache
Title: Re: IBEW Representative Tom Reid, Can He Provide Proper Justice?
Post by: Conversationalist on June 24, 2015, 11:49:10 AM
So why dont you tell us the saga of the alleged low level assault GTU. Has the tape been cleaned up so to speak? Did the goons help with that?

Perhaps the police refuse to push for the tape? Or they refuse to pursue it at all. Just like a lawyer can tell you have a good case and do not a police officer can tell a person not to pursue an issue. Same rule applies. Doesnt mean their right. Also being a cop is just another job and some cops do a good job, some do not and abuse their position.

You seem so optimistic GTU. Is that because your confident the goons will come through? Deliver?  Wow your confidence can speak volumes to intelligent minded people.

Are the goons going to buy a judge for the libel case? Good questions all based on your confidence and ego and of course on past stuff.   Dont like the questions. Im sure your lawyers dont like these questions either. Im sure they are sifting through every word. Is that what the $27000 hidden bill was for? The one at the June meeting that no correct answer was given for? But should.







Title: IBEW Representative Tom Reid, Can He Provide Proper Justice?
Post by: GoodTradeUnionist on June 26, 2015, 02:15:54 AM
The fundamental problem with Klyne, Speranza and company is they act as though they are doctoral candidates from the University of Google.

We see a similar problem when people do their own wiring without proper training, or the tendency to self diagnose ailments without having gone to Med School.

Tom Reid is the Canadian Pope's right hand man - smart, experienced, and brimming with practical and learned insights.

So it's very sad that pompous incorrigible contrarians can't accept the sensible insights of a well respected and seasoned IBEW staffer whose goal is to promote the values of the IBEW we all cherish.

I believe Tom understands proper Justice, but better still, he's a devout trade union theologian that balances the interests of fairness, by doing the right thing.

We're fortunate Tom interceded with prompt clarification concerning Perry's parking lot inquisition, mind you the line is certainly smaller from the glory day's of 1st District protests, placards demanding justice, and Perry bearing cake and other confectionary goods.

Personally, i'm tickled pink Tom was able to diffuse this tempest in a teapot.
Title: Re: IBEW Representative Tom Reid, Can He Provide Proper Justice?
Post by: Conversationalist on June 26, 2015, 12:03:29 PM
I believe  USA members asked for a meeting with IO Washington to discuss issues and the IO refused. Refusal to discuss is a sign of hiding stuff. Afraid to have to face the truth.

Not all laws are morally right. Not all sentences in court are true justice. So just because the IO believes they can hide behind the ibew constitution doesn't mean their right or great lawyers or scholars. There are morally disgraceful lawyers and leaders.



Title: Re: IBEW Representative Tom Reid, Can He Provide Proper Justice?
Post by: Conversationalist on June 26, 2015, 01:01:22 PM
I certainly wouldn't want to equate the pope in any comment-the Catholic church has covered up and  hidden child molester priests for years.  They raped innocent children especially our forefathers of canada-the Canadian Indian .children.


So very tactless to use the Pop while huge lawsuits are before the courts. Some people must not think before they write.

Yes our world is full of morally corrupt individuals that hide behind money and power to hide stuff.


Title: Re: IBEW Representative Tom Reid, Can He Provide Proper Justice?
Post by: Conversationalist on June 26, 2015, 02:12:26 PM
The question which the IO should answer is why was Gary M made an A member ibew member as he doesn't work in the trade while communication guys under skipwith  were B  members and why were there some guys under skipwith comm agreement paying A member dues while they worked side by side with  the same classification who were paying B dues. Doesn't make sense now does it?

For  our great leaders so legally scholared where's the answers to that.  So you see the Union including IO enriched themselves with union dues that should not have been paid by members under skipwith  comm agreement who had to pay A members dues.  I hear the late Don Leitch was tongue tied when asked stuff.Refused a straight answer. Refusal to answer is cover up.


Title: Re: IBEW Representative Tom Reid, Can He Provide Proper Justice?
Post by: Conversationalist on June 26, 2015, 02:30:07 PM
So if you talk to communication workers under skipwith agreement--thr skipwith agreement was shoved onto ibew 353 communication workers behind their backs. It was the most chaotic thing  ever in a union. Certainly would make good trade unionist shake their head.

It was  less benefits and wages.  Classifications were a joke. Members threatening lawsuits because of the mess and that's the only way it would be resolved for them.

The next level of classification was not automatic the company had to raise you even though you served the required hours--so  unlike in the electrical union apprenticeship where you become the second term after the required hours this was not the case in the communications sector.  A com  worker has a copy of the first communications agreement. Also just like some members received letters about the special called meeting about  their pension plan in 2012 or 2013  after the meeting was held and not in time for the deadline communication workers received an undated letter on or after the deadline as well. Clerical error for something so important? Coincidental in both cases. You be the judge. Is there a pattern? Again you be the judge. I am just reporting the stories.

So are important issues covered up? REFUSED ANSWERS TO THEM? do thrfacts give the answer.


Title: Re: IBEW Representative Tom Reid, Can He Provide Proper Justice?
Post by: Conversationalist on June 26, 2015, 02:46:30 PM
So u do not need to go to law school to ask the right questions.

Gary M was made an A member of ibew 353 while alot of ibew 353 communication workers were B members. Why?

Where is the answer to this question asked for years?
Title: Try staying on topic Gary
Post by: Eric Klyne on June 26, 2015, 08:46:06 PM

Erik,

Bros. Reid was very clear and succinct in his words, which were carefully chosen.



Quote

Yes, Tom Reid did choose his words carefully
Mr. Reid worded this so that members would think that the IBEW has never lost before courts, labour boards, and tribunals.
But that is not true and is not what he is saying.
Let's look at how else this makes sense
but supports Brother Perry Speranza's grievances with disgracefully corrupt IBEW officers.

This is what Daniels stated but worded a little differently.

I am sure you are also aware that
the laws of our great nation have recognized the IBEW Constitution for over 100 years.
When IBEW officers self-govern themselves in accordance with the aforementioned Constitution
and are tested before courts, labour boards, and tribunals,
time and time again the IBEW's rights are protected.

Now, the opposite is also true.

I am sure you are also aware that
the laws of our great nation have recognized the IBEW Constitution for  over 100 years.
When IBEW officers self-govern themselves in violation of the IBEW Constitution,
and are tested before courts, labour boards, and tribunals,
time and time again they are found guilty of violating the laws of our great nation.



Gary Majesky aka GoodTradeUnionist,


Erik,

Bros. Reid was very clear and succinct in his words, which were carefully chosen.



Now Gary, we know you would call a spade a manuo-pedal excavationary implement.

But try calling a spade a spade with this simple yes or no question.

In regards to IBEW Constitution, Article XVII, Section 3, The R.S. shall keep correct minutes of each meeting of the L.U.

Is the Recording Secretary allowed to tape record the meetings?
Yes or no?
Title: Re: IBEW Representative Tom Reid, Can He Provide Proper Justice?
Post by: Conversationalist on June 27, 2015, 03:57:43 PM
Good question
Title: IBEW Representative Tom Reid, Can He Provide Proper Justice?
Post by: GoodTradeUnionist on June 28, 2015, 02:10:19 PM
Eric, your fascination with the IBEW borders on obsession.  You need help with that preoccupation.

Regarding the impulse to tape record conversations and meetings, sensible members realize that what you and Speranza advocate and practice is offensive in a practical sense.

Simply, Recording Secretaries are vested with the authority to control the manner in which meetings are recorded.  By virtue of their office, and having been elected to the position, Recording Secretaries find their authority in the IBEW Constitution which empowers to record the business and discussions transacted at any official union meeting.

The supremacy of IBEW law seems to bother you, because you choose to believe that this constitutes a yoke around your neck and your personal liberties.   

However, when given the opportunity to become an IBEW member, each of us swears an oath to uphold the principles upon which the IBEW was founded and not bring harm to it in any manner.  It's right up there with the Lord's prayer and forms the foundation of our relationship with the IBEW. 

Instead, Eric Klyne and Kathy L. do everything in their power to embarrass, frustrate, bring shame, and say anything to elicit ill feelings and harm against the IBEW. 

When confronted with IBEW decency and fairness, they default to recitation of crime lords running amok, brazen corruption at all levels of the organization, and a wanton disregard for sanctity of the rule of law. 

The world you both inhabit is a chillingly Orwellian place, for sure.

But it bears no resemblance to the IBEW that I know, or the union peopled by good trade unionists who try to make the workplace better for our members, and improve the lot of working Canadians everywhere.

Even if you're not IBEW members, come to a 353 meeting, show yourself, bring flyers, and others trinkets and join in the merriment of brotherhood.  Perhaps then we can identify the loopy characters that bring shame and dishonor to our great union. 

Otherwise, you are nobodies, with no connection or skin in the game when it comes to the governance and administration of the IBEW either Internationally, Nationally, or Locally. 
Title: Re: IBEW Representative Tom Reid, Can He Provide Proper Justice?
Post by: Eric Klyne on June 29, 2015, 02:50:52 AM
Simply, Recording Secretaries are vested with the authority to control the manner in which meetings are recorded.  By virtue of their office, and having been elected to the position, Recording Secretaries find their authority in the IBEW Constitution which empowers to record the business and discussions transacted at any official union meeting.

Gary Majesky aka GoodTradeUnionist,

Leave it to you to avoid a simple yes or no question.

Simply, Recording Secretaries are vested with the authority to control the manner in which meetings are recorded.

That contradicts the IBEW Constitution.
Controlling the manner in which meetings are recorded could mean that the manner could be malicious.
Like when the Trial Board tape Recordings were tampered by IBEW 353 officers by deleting a portion and offering it as the correct minutes.
IBEW Constitution says this:
The R.S. shall keep correct minutes of each meeting of the L.U.

Try writing one sentence when answering the question Gary Majesky.

Is the Recording Secretary allowed to tape record the meetings?
Yes or no?
Title: Re: IBEW Representative Tom Reid, Can He Provide Proper Justice?
Post by: PSperanza on June 29, 2015, 10:56:39 AM
I am a member Gary Majesky Local 353 Executive board member and I attend all the meetings in local 353 and since the forced merger of locals 1739, 894 and 353 by the I.O. and the imposition of the unit system I have attended all three unit meetings in the same month on various occasions. Those first few months when "the" Recording Secretary was using a double standard to pick and choose what non action he wanted to record in the minutes demonstrated to me the need enforce the IBEW Constitution that requires correct minutes to be recorded. My interpretation of "correct" mean accurate.

Wouldn't you agree Gary?

In the "unit system" it is required that a member attempting to make a motion follow that motion from unit meeting to unit meeting to support it. In my opinion minutes recorded of some "actions" did not correctly record what took place. I attempted to correct the omissions at meetings where the minutes were read out but was improperly denied by the officers in charge. I am not the only member that was present at those meetings and in fact some local 353 officers were present and it is their duty according to the IBEW Constitution to file charges when it is violated.

I tried to resolve the issues and eventually filed charges to document the violations. Not only were they not resolved but they were not even properly addressed by the I.O. until I protested at least 1 year later when i mentioned it in a conversation with International Representative Tom Reid. International Representative Bruce McNamara made an appointment with me and I made myself available to meet with him to discuss three outstanding charges against local 353 officers related what in my opinion were violations to the IBEW Constitution. When I question him about not being contacted until such a late time, he said to me... I'm sorry about that".

More recently I attended all three meetings in May 2015 and June 2015, there were lots of business reps and officers in attendance at those meetings to support the payment of a legal that named officers as plaintiffs in Notice of Libel against a member. I believe it was the first time I have seen Gary Majesky at all three unit meetings in the same month where I attended.

Tom Reid said to me that a chairman has the power to deny a motion to lay a bill on the table, but that seems to me to violate the parliamentary rules that our constitution identifies as the method by which meetings are to be properly conducted.

So I am confused. ???

We need a clarification.

We also need to know about "policies" that are in place and to be enforced at our local union meetings and they should to be read out and to be distributed to members in writing. We should not allow a chairman to single out any one member in discriminatory and harassing manner related issues that are not clearly defined when they are attempting to speak on an important issues. That in my opinion is actually disturbing the peace and harmony of local union meeting. We debated and had differences of opinion at the east unit meeting on Wednesday June 10, 2015 the night before the south Unit Meeting and it was all done respectfully with no disruptions. In my opinion Robert White chose to employ unfair tactics to interrupt and deny questions to the bills and eliminate a member from a local union meeting for a disruption that appeared to be planned.

This is another test for the Brothers at the International office, will they continue to protect and condone improper actions and punish those members that do not accept being unfairly treated by officers that violate the proper rules of order or act to encourage participation and proper procedure and fairness at union meetings.

A very simple question but a very important one in this information age.       
Title: IBEW Representative Tom Reid, Can He Provide Proper Justice?
Post by: GoodTradeUnionist on June 30, 2015, 12:12:49 AM
It's fascinating that you have the time and take notice what rep's and Officers attend unit meetings.

Frankly that smells like people taking an interest in the job they were elected by the members to perform.

Where's the cloud in that silver lining?

At the last 353 south unit meeting you fell for the classic "it's rabbit season, no duck season, it's duck season, shoot him now."

Here's my take on how you got your ass kicked at the last 353 south union meeting.

Prior to the discussion on the legal's, you took the bait whether you were secretly tape recording members and the meeting.  When called out you couldn't contain yourself, launched into your rant, and when the chair polled the members, you lost the will of the floor.

Sure you hissed and supputtered, but essentially you allowed yourself to be caste in the mould Richard Nixon or Edgar J. Hoover, whose image is associated with sleaze and unethical conduct, particularly their unsavory habit of clandestine operations and shady surveillance operations.

Prior to the legal bill, the members first voted on your credibility because of your implulse to secretly record meetings and conversations.

Then when the legal bill came up, virtually the entire floor had a foretaste of your antics, witnessed your routine, then voted in support of the legal expenditure.

You blame President White for stage managing your ouster, when in fact, you lead with your glass chin.

When you have zero credibility on the floor of the union meeting, don't blame the Chairman, Officers, or members, but look in the mirror.

Perry, you need to stop tilting at wind mills, and find ways to cooperate and deal with the important issues facing the members.
Title: Re: IBEW Representative Tom Reid, Can He Provide Proper Justice?
Post by: Eric Klyne on July 24, 2015, 12:37:29 AM
Will the IBEW 1st District IVP Representative Tom Reid step in and provide justice?

So let me get this straight,

The IBEW I.O. has declared,
through its' IBEW 1st District IVP,
publicly on February 2013,

that "
…Union members decide how their dues are spent democratically at regular union meetings by a vote for or against the motion."

and also that

"the IBEW Constitution did not allow the funds of the local union to be divided severally amongst the members."


BUT…
...currently,
the IBEW 353 officers
have denied members the opportunity to make an informed decision on how their dues are spent by violating Parliamentary Procedure..
AND…
the IBEW 353 officers
violated the IBEW Constitution by allowing the funds of the local union to be divided severally amongst the members. That being a group of IBEW 353 members that hold positions of L.U. office.

So…again,
Parliamentary procedure was violated
to prevent members from getting information on a motion
to pay for a Libel case that was put forward several IBEW 353 members/officers.

Given that the IBEW I.O. states that the IBEW Constitution is against funding lawsuits brought forth by members
and that democratically voting on how members' dues are spent is based on being informed on the details of the motion…

Why hasn't the IBEW 1st District IVP Representative Tom Reid stepped in and provided justice?
Surely Tom Reid is aware of these clearly disturbing violations. No?  ???

Does this violation to the supremacy of IBEW law not bother you Gary Majesky? (aka GoodTradeUnionist)

Gary Majesky? (aka GoodTradeUnionist), you swore an oath to uphold the principles upon which the IBEW was founded and not bring harm to it in any manner.
Will you not stand up against this travesty happening within the IBEW?
Or are you one of the plaintiffs filing the Libel suit?  :P
Title: IBEW Representative Tom Reid, Can He Provide Proper Justice?
Post by: GoodTradeUnionist on July 24, 2015, 11:43:18 PM
You ascribe identities upon me which I find flattering, but you are mistaken.

However, I am an IBEW member, and you are not, so please foregive my lack of manners.

It seems to me you squawk about issues and meetings which you have no direct knowledge.

Since you have no direct knowledge of proceedings within Local 353, we can't give much weight to your insights.

I find being present at meetings informs my views of events that transpire, certainly more tan an Internet chatterbox.

Therefore, let me set you and Perry straight.

Members were aware of the nature of the legal fee, specifically a legal action by 353 officers against a member who has libeled the executive branch of the local union.

Furthermore, members were advised that there would be no discussion on the specifics of the action, save and except that it involved a member who has libeled the executive officers in the public realm.

There was however discussion on settlement, the need for resolution, and for reasonableness to prevail.

I understand, according to the BM/FS that the prohibition or gag order relates specifically to any discussion about the evidence or details of the action as the mater is before the courts.

Time will tell who's right or wrong.

One thing is certain, this will address once and for all the pugalistic IBEW hate mongering that is your and Perry's forte.

Am I proud of the Local 353 Officers?  The answer is Yes, but I personally believe Perry Speranza, whom I like, should grow up and act more mature.

He's a former IBEW employee and organizer who is punch drunk after losing so many elections that he can't behave responsibly.

That's the tragedy, and the law suit is the only way to stop his irresponsible nonsense.

Let's hope Perry realizes the error of his ways, figures out right from wrong, and snatches the settlement olive branch that Stockwood's Deputies hopefuly embedded in the legal officialdom.

Blessed are the peace makers.
Title: Re: IBEW Representative Tom Reid, Can He Provide Proper Justice?
Post by: Eric Klyne on July 25, 2015, 11:12:30 PM
The IBEW I.O. states that the IBEW Constitution is against funding lawsuits brought forth by members.

currently,
the IBEW 353 officers
violated the IBEW Constitution by allowing the funds of the local union to be divided severally amongst the members. That being a group of IBEW 353 members that hold positions of L.U. office for the Libel suit.


Does this violation to the supremacy of IBEW law not bother you Gary Majesky? (aka GoodTradeUnionist)
Title: IBEW Representative Tom Reid, Can He Provide Proper Justice?
Post by: GoodTradeUnionist on July 26, 2015, 03:54:22 AM
No worries, no bother, all in a days work.

Each case on its own merits.

Unfortunately Brothe Flemming cannot consider this matter,
However, IVP Daniels can cogitate if so inclined.

I'd suggest you contact him, or his administrative attaché.

A sure way to catch their attention would be to decend on Myerside, break-out the loud speaker and flyers and start chanting...

Maybe a rendition of "Give Peace A Chance" or some other folk union protest song.
Or We Shall Overcome.

On the IBEW motorcycle ride last week, IBEW President Emertus, Ed Hill, was overheard saying, "when are you guys going to kick Speranza out."

Harsh but not surprising words from a wise IBEW elder and statesman.

Within that context, the 353 Executive Officers are taking care of business,
As they did when your ass was run...
Or did you forget.

I'm not sure sure you're the best guy to give advice to Speranza.

As always, I appreciate your insights, but maybe you should figure out how and why you were removed from IBEW membership.

There must be some official letter you received?

Care to share that so we can assess your credibility when offering legal bromides regarding IBEW law?

When in doubt, I prefer the will of the membership particularly in matters involving the direction given to the Executive Officers, and specifically with respect to this matter.

Whether the ballot box, or union meeting, in the case 3 unit meetings, the 353 membership supported the elected Officers and their decision how to protect the integrity of the local union.

Pretty powerful and compelling stuff, and true union democracy.

The kind I'm proud to be part of.
Title: IBEW 353 officers violate Article 18 of the IBEW Constitution
Post by: Eric Klyne on July 26, 2015, 09:31:58 PM
IBEW 353 officers violate Article 18 of the IBEW Constitution
- Will the IBEW 1st District IVP Bill Daniels stop this injustice?

No worries, no bother, all in a days work.

Each case on its own merits.

Unfortunately Brothe Flemming cannot consider this matter,
However, IVP Daniels can cogitate if so inclined.

I'd suggest you contact him, or his administrative attaché.



Gary Majesky aka GoodTradeUnionist,

You're an IBEW 353 member.
You swore an oath to uphold the principles upon which the IBEW was founded.
It's your duty to contact IVP Bill Daniels about the violations of the IBEW Constitution.
The IBEW 353 officers violated the IBEW Constitution.
When did violating the IBEW Constitution become the foundation of the IBEW Judicial system?

The past IBEW 1st District IVP Phil Flemming was referring to Article 18 of the IBEW Constitution.
Quote
IBEW Constitution

Article XVIII   - Dues . Assessments .  Funds

Sec. 6.

The funds and property cannot be divided among the members individually,
except in the form of such benefits as maybe provided by the L.U. after approval of the I.P.

Currently,
IBEW 353 members have divided funds amongst themselves by encouraging members to pass a motion that pays for their "personal" lawsuit against another member.
These IBEW 353 members are IBEW 353 officers
that have encouraged 353 members
to unknowingly violate the IBEW Constitution.


YOU, Gary Majesky aka GoodTradeUnionist,
suggest that violating the IBEW Constitution is OK under certain circumstances.

The merits of a case cannot be determined,
if the charging party is not allowed a fair and just opportunity to make their case.
But in this case, things are quite clear.
That being:
Individual IBEW 353 members/officers violated Article 18 of the IBEW Constitution
The reason is that these members feel they have been libelled by another member.
Is that reason enough to violate the IBEW Constitution?
Apparently you think so Gary.

YOU, Gary Majesky aka GoodTradeUnionist, and the IBEW 353 officers
are making the IBEW look really bad.
Title: IBEW Representative Tom Reid, Can He Provide Proper Justice?
Post by: GoodTradeUnionist on July 27, 2015, 11:45:46 PM
There is an important factual distinction.

My understanding is the LU 353 Officers must take the libel action forward because a union organizational entity cannot.  Therefore its Executive Officers must take the action forward, on behalf of the local union, in order to protect the integrity of the local union.

The Officers on behalf of IBEW LU 353 are the paintiff's, and the defendant is accused of various libelous conduct in the public realm. 

The crux of this dispute seems to relate to a persistent course of vexatious and unwanted commentary in the public realm that besmirches the reputation of the lock union Officers, and by extension the local union.

When you knock on the door of government seeking regulatory or legislative changes, as well as funding, the reputation of the Officers who represent the local union are substantially prejudiced by the libelous commentary, which in turn diminishes the integrity of the local union.

The libelous commentary is not fair speech, and serves to harm the local unions organizing efforts, and provides ammunition to enemies of organized labour, and in particular LU 353.

You wouldn't understand that because you were removed from IBEW membership for conduct that was inimical with your obligations as a union member, which was an extraordinary feat.

I'll be watching how this unfolds, but would rather see an apology and a measure of contrition for commentary that maligned the local union Officers who are functioning not as mere members, but as stewards of the local union.

People can shit on me any day they want and do, however, if I am an Officer, than I'm functioning in a different capacity, which distinguishable for the purposes of Article XVIII, Section 6..
Title: Re: IBEW Representative Tom Reid, Can He Provide Proper Justice?
Post by: Eric Klyne on July 28, 2015, 12:56:07 AM
There is an important factual distinction.

My understanding is the LU 353 Officers must take the libel action forward because a union organizational entity cannot.  Therefore its Executive Officers must take the action forward, on behalf of the local union, in order to protect the integrity of the local union.

WRONG!
Where did you get this understanding?
Just Google "union files libel"… and you will find  "union organizational entities" that have brought libel actions forward.
You are referring to the LMRDA provisions that does NOT allow unions to charge members for libel/slander.

Therefore its Executive Officers must take the action forward, on behalf of the local union, in order to protect the integrity of the local union.

WRONG!
This is not about protecting the integrity of the local union.
Otherwise, the libel suit would not name individuals as plaintiffs.

The Officers on behalf of IBEW LU 353 are the paintiff's, and the defendant is accused of various libelous conduct in the public realm. 

WRONG!
The officers are plaintiffs BUT not on behalf of IBEW LU 353
because any accusations of being corrupt is specifically aimed at individual officers NOT the local union.

The crux of this dispute seems to relate to a persistent course of vexatious and unwanted commentary in the public realm that besmirches the reputation of the lock union Officers, and by extension the local union.

WRONG!
Local union officers are responsible for their own actions and reputations. The local unions' reputation is NOT responsible for their actions by extension.

When you knock on the door of government seeking regulatory or legislative changes, as well as funding, the reputation of the Officers who represent the local union are substantially prejudiced by the libelous commentary, which in turn diminishes the integrity of the local union.

The officers can also be substantially prejudiced by truthful commentary. This would only diminish the integrity of the local union if the current practice of misinforming the members continues.

The libelous commentary is not fair speech, and serves to harm the local unions organizing efforts, and provides ammunition to enemies of organized labour, and in particular LU 353.

The truth is fair speech.
If IBEW 353 officers violate the rules. It is fair speech to label them accordingly.
Such labels may diminish the integrity of the individual officers but NOT the local union.
What truth provides ammunition to enemies of organized labour, in particular LU 353?
This is a overused excuse that has never provided any evidence. Got any examples?

I'll be watching how this unfolds, but would rather see an apology and a measure of contrition for commentary that maligned the local union Officers who are functioning not as mere members, but as stewards of the local union.

Where are the written apologies from the IBEW 353 officers that continually discriminate against and charge Speranza?
Remember, ALL past charges and penalties were overturned.
That alone diminishes the integrity of the individual officers but NOT the local union.

People can shit on me any day they want and do, however, if I am an Officer, than I'm functioning in a different capacity, which distinguishable for the purposes of Article XVIII, Section 6..

Nothing in Article XVIII, Section 6 puts L.U. officers above the law.
Title: Re: IBEW Representative Tom Reid, Can He Provide Proper Justice?
Post by: Conversationalist on July 28, 2015, 08:49:03 PM
There is an important factual distinction.

My understanding is the LU 353 Officers must take the libel action forward because a union organizational entity cannot.  Therefore its Executive Officers must take the action forward, on behalf of the local union, in order to protect the integrity of the local union.

The Officers on behalf of IBEW LU 353 are the paintiff's, and the defendant is accused of various libelous conduct in the public realm. 

The crux of this dispute seems to relate to a persistent course of vexatious and unwanted commentary in the public realm that besmirches the reputation of the lock union Officers, and by extension the local union.

When you knock on the door of government seeking regulatory or legislative changes, as well as funding, the reputation of the Officers who represent the local union are substantially prejudiced by the libelous commentary, which in turn diminishes the integrity of the local union.

The libelous commentary is not fair speech, and serves to harm the local unions organizing efforts, and provides ammunition to enemies of organized labour, and in particular LU 353.

You wouldn't understand that because you were removed from IBEW membership for conduct that was inimical with your obligations as a union member, which was an extraordinary feat.

I'll be watching how this unfolds, but would rather see an apology and a measure of contrition for commentary that maligned the local union Officers who are functioning not as mere members, but as stewards of the local union.

People can shit on me any day they want and do, however, if I am an Officer, than I'm functioning in a different capacity, which distinguishable for the purposes of Article XVIII, Section 6..
e lo

I guess somebody better send Prime Minister Harper copies of the local union newsletters where our elected officials write about his government and the need to toss him out and  Harper better then put a libel suit against these local union officials on behalf of all Canadians that support his government --this libel lawsuit against Perry  is no different than if Harper chose to try and put forth an unmerited lawsuit on behalf of Canadians. Same logic and same line of reasoning.
Title: Re: IBEW Representative Tom Reid, Can He Provide Proper Justice?
Post by: Conversationalist on July 28, 2015, 09:05:01 PM
This libel lawsuit is unmerited as they are elected local union officials and as such are subjected to questions that demand answers and the 654 who voted for Perry are dues paying members and as such are part of the local union and they are happy that Perry demands answers to his questions and to throw aside their opinions as union members is not democratic
and a judge if he is a good judge will throw this lawsuit out immediately on the first day as it does not have a leg to stand on.
 
But thats my opinion and I think we all look forward to this court case where it cant be hidden any longer.

So when is the court date?

This libel suit is just an intimidation tactic and it follows the same line as the personal lawsuit of Barry Stevens approved by the E Board against Perry Speranza in 2007 where they had a personal lawsuit paid from local union funds to protect the office of the President. Totally illegitimate expenditure indicating that this local union by means of its various entities does whatever they please and I hope the judge will enjoy reading the email from Barry Stevens in Court.

654 who voted for Perry want an answer to why they are funding this lawsuit from union funds of which they pay into. Their voices are just as important as the 1100 who voted for Jeff Irons.
Title: IBEW 1st District IVP Bill Daniels > IBEW integrity suffers if Justice delayed.
Post by: Eric Klyne on July 29, 2015, 09:50:02 PM
There is an important factual distinction.

My understanding is the LU 353 Officers must take the libel action forward because a union organizational entity cannot.  Therefore its Executive Officers must take the action forward, on behalf of the local union, in order to protect the integrity of the local union.

WRONG!
Where did you get this understanding?
Just Google "union files libel"… and you will find  "union organizational entities" that have brought libel actions forward.
You are referring to the LMRDA provisions that does NOT allow unions to charge members for libel/slander.

Gary Majesky aka GoodTradeUnionist,

You are against legislation that empowers union members.
You're against the American LMRDA.
Union discipline for libel is invalid per se as an infringement of the union member's right of free speech, guaranteed by the LMRDA.
Gary,
why would YOU suddenly adhere to the American LMRDA, when allegedly conducting IBEW business?

Gary,
you keep insisting that the Libel suit has been filed to protect the integrity of IBEW 353.
But the IBEW 353 is not listed as the plaintiff(s), so you're WRONG.

I can see how you wish to misinform the IBEW membership.
Because members cannot use union funds to file personal lawsuits,
you're attempting to convince IBEW 353 members that the IBEW can sue members indirectly.
That individuals can sue members on behalf of the IBEW?
A sadly weak attempt to argue that this doesn't violate Article XVIII, Section 6 of the IBEW Constitution.

In order for your BS to be true Gary/GoodTradeUnionist, the plaintiffs would have to argue that Perry libelled the IBEW.


Gary/GoodTradeUnionist
Gary/GTU says the IBEW was libelled but the IBEW did not file the libel suit?
Gary/GTU says the IBEW can't file for libel suits…but they can and Gary/GTU didn't say why?
(http://rs365.pbsrc.com/albums/oo92/pocket_trips/big_headed_tiny_dog_chasing_tail_lg.gif~c100)
Gary/GTU says members can file libel suits for the IBEW?
Gary/GTU says the members can violate Article XVIII, Section 6 because the members are officers?

The IBEW 1st District can't defend this BS Gary.
The plaintiffs would have to argue that the IBEW was libelled.
The Judge would throw the case out because the IBEW is NOT the plaintiff.
You end up chasing your tail when defending a LIE with a LIE .
Title: IBEW Representative Tom Reid, Can He Provide Proper Justice?
Post by: GoodTradeUnionist on July 30, 2015, 03:13:05 AM
I see you're another alumnist of the University of Google.

The law surrounding the tort of defamation is straightforward.

It remains to be seen whether the imputation that 353 officers are corrupt is protected by qualified privilege or opinion, particularly when rebroadcast using different social media nd public mediums, accessible beyond the mere confines of the local union.

Invoking the fair or free speech defense to shield one self from accusations of libelous defamation is the impulse defense of the wanton charlatans whose preoccupation is to distract and subvert the union from its more nobler purposes and goals.

Intellectual rigor, and some rancor is healthy for democracy, however what you preach and practice is "hard-on" politics because of perceived injustices in the past.

Being amongst serial malcontents bothers me not, because every 3 years 353 activists line up, run when the starters pistol fires, and see who the members support.

It the Darwin of Democracy principle that the strongest and fittest survive.

You Erik are the 3-billed Dodo that went extinct, never to share your DNA in the IBEW gene pool.  Political road kill is an apt description.

But your lament regarding Speranza's numerous salvation stories of vainglorious vindications on appeal is suspect and qualified.

You make him out as some poor black soul that was lynched by the union KKK.

The fact is Perry Spernza is a serial charger who has filed more charges against IBEW officers and reps than anyone in Canada.  And his win/loss track record is abysmal and a total waste of union resources.

Although you impute that GTU is Gary Majesky and vice versa, prove it!

You can wish identities upon anonymous fictions, but in the end you're chasing an internet ghost.  And don't put much stock in the defense "GTU made me do it."

At the end of the day the following is 100% accurate:

1.  Majesky never charged Speranza.
2.  Majesky never sat on any Speranza trial boards
3.  Majesky never ran against Speranza

The only thing he did, and this was totally legal, Majesky participated in the democratic traditions of LU 353, as did his father before him.

Simply, Majesky's reputation is clean except for the scourge of corruption imputed upon his good name by none other than your soap box champion of all that ails the IBEW.

I believe in the principle that Union Leaders serve the members, even the lunatic fringe.  But there are limits to that core philosophy of brotherhood, which one people are learning the hard way.









.
Title: Re: IBEW Representative Tom Reid, Can He Provide Proper Justice?
Post by: serf on July 30, 2015, 05:03:59 PM
More of the usual camouflaging eloquence from Majesky, masking lawfare with contrived legitimacy. Because the libel suit is based on a lie! It redefines Perry's use of the word corruption to mean criminal behaviour rather than unscrupulous behaviour as he defined it, according to the dictionary definition. Throwing a straw-man into a libel suit is a desperate maneuver, which belies the real intention to muzzle dissidence.
Title: Re: IBEW Representative Tom Reid, Can He Provide Proper Justice?
Post by: Conversationalist on July 30, 2015, 07:04:42 PM
Yes sociopath GTU can't ever accept responsibility for his actions. He has such  confidence in his protection So who is protecting him?

The court can decide if the tape of Gary stating he is GTU is authentic or not.

I much rather watch the trial then see Perry apologize for anything. He doesn't need to.

Title: Re: IBEW Representative Tom Reid, Can He Provide Proper Justice?
Post by: Conversationalist on July 30, 2015, 08:03:13 PM
The law of defamation is very  clear as well. Very hard time for elected officials to sue someone for libel especially officials paid by union members hard working dollars.

So let's take the rose colored glasses off GTU you guys are  embarking on a very hard case at the expense of union members money all because of your attempt to muzzle free speech regarding incompretence etc.of your own doing,.

So that is what ibew 353 me beds need to be protected from.  Incompetent officials who cover up their mistakes and use others to protect them and their incompetence.